Joomla MCP Server

by nasoma

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'manage_article_state' and 'move_article_to_trash' since moving to trash is a specific state change. The descriptions clarify this, but an agent might initially confuse them as both handle article states. Other tools like create, get, and update are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed: some tools use verb_noun (e.g., create_article, update_article), while others include 'joomla' prefix (e.g., get_joomla_articles, get_joomla_categories) and one uses a different verb style (manage_article_state). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the names remain readable and understandable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing articles and categories in a Joomla context. Each tool serves a specific function, and there are no extraneous tools, making it appropriate for the server's purpose without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core CRUD operations for articles (create, get, update, delete via trash) and includes category retrieval, which is essential for Joomla content management. A minor gap exists in lacking direct category management tools (e.g., create or update categories), but agents can still perform basic workflows with the provided tools.
Average 3.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations or low schema coverage, failing to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, despite the output schema potentially covering return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters (including complex ones like 'introtext' and 'convert_plain_text'), the description fails to explain what these parameters do, their formats, or how they affect the update. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing article on the Joomla website'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'manage_article_state' which might also modify articles, nor does it specify what aspects of an article can be updated beyond the general concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'manage_article_state' for state changes or 'create_article' for new articles. It mentions 'existing article' which implies a prerequisite of article existence but doesn't explicitly state this or reference sibling tools for checking or creating articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('manage the state') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to the article in each state. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating usage notes). Every part earns its place by specifying the action and states.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (state mutation tool), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral transparency, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'target_state' with examples (published, unpublished, archived, trashed) but doesn't explain the mapping to integer values or provide details on 'article_id' (e.g., format, sourcing). This adds some meaning but is insufficient for the two undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('manage') and resource ('existing article on the Joomla website') with specific states listed (published, unpublished, archived, trashed). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_article' (creation vs. state management) and 'move_article_to_trash' (specific state vs. general management), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_article_to_trash' or 'update_article'. It mentions managing states but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., article must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for new articles).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates an article but fails to mention critical aspects like whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or the effect of default parameters like 'published: true'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for a basic tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for a creation tool in a CMS environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles provide minimal semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the tool's name, such as explaining what 'convert_plain_text' does, how 'category_id' relates to existing categories, or the implications of 'published'. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new article on the Joomla website'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_article' beyond the basic create vs. update difference, missing an opportunity to clarify scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_article' or 'manage_article_state'. It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as whether the category must exist or if authentication is required, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve all articles' but doesn't specify whether this returns all articles at once or uses pagination, what authentication is required, rate limits, or what happens with large datasets. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description's job is simplified. However, for a retrieval operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention something about the return format or data scope. The current description is minimally adequate but could provide more context about what 'all articles' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('all articles from the Joomla website'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_joomla_categories', but the resource specificity provides adequate distinction for a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_joomla_categories' or 'create_article'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for selecting this retrieval method over other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('retrieve') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a website.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits) and doesn't explain when to use it relative to siblings, which are gaps considering the complexity of interacting with a Joomla website.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('all categories from the Joomla website'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_joomla_articles', which retrieves articles rather than categories, though this distinction is implied by the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used for listing categories before creating articles or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_joomla_articles'. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the action as moving to a trashed state with recovery, which clarifies it's a soft delete. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and includes essential context ('allowing recovery') without any wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (soft deletion with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and behavioral trait (recovery), but lacks parameter explanations and detailed usage guidelines, slightly reducing completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters, failing to explain 'article_id' or 'expected_title' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to the schema doing the heavy lifting, but no additional semantic value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete an article by moving to the trashed state') and resource ('on the Joomla website'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_article' or 'update_article' by focusing on deletion with recovery capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'allowing recovery,' which suggests this is for soft deletion rather than permanent removal. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'manage_article_state' or other deletion methods, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![joomla-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nasoma/joomla-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nasoma/joomla-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![joomla-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nasoma/joomla-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nasoma/joomla-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nasoma/joomla-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server